Those of us who lived under the barely distinguishable leadership of Willard Romney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (God save it!) know very well that the emotional membrane separating Lofty Willard from Snippy Willard is thin indeed, and that the membrane separating Snippy Willard from Dickhead Willard is well-nigh translucent. Both of those membranes were tested fully here on Tuesday night by the president, by Candy Crowley — who has clearly had enough of your bullshit, thank you very much — and by the simple fact that certain members of The Help tested the challenger’s ideas and found them wanting and, my dear young man, that simply is not done. And both of those membranes failed like rotting levees in a storm….

…But not even I expected Romney to let his entitled, Lord-of-the-Manor freak flag fly as proudly as he did on Tuesday night. He got in the president’s face. He got in Crowley’s face. That moment when he was hectoring the president about the president’s pension made him look like someone to whom the valet has brought the wrong Mercedes.

Really, I’m sorry I missed it. Pierce finished the post —

Put all those Romneys together and that’s what they sound like, even when they’re talking to the president of the United States. It’s the voice of the bloodless job-killer, the outsourcing Moloch of the industrial midwest, and the guy who poses with his Wall Street cronies with dollar bills in his mouth. People who claim to be interested in “character” should remember that.

The best part is not just that Mittens looked bad, but that he looked bad in ways that most folks who didn’t watch the debate are going to hear about. For example, the moment when Candy Crowley corrected Mitt on what the President said after the Benghazi Consulate attack was replayed on every news show on television, network and cable, I believe. It’s all over the Web as well. You’d have to be cloistered to miss it.

The Right, of course, thinks Crowley was behaving disgracefully by not letting Mittens get away with lying. Some are still arguing that the President didn’t say the consulate attack was an act of terrorism in his Rose Garden speech. Oh, sure, he said,

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

… but, they are whining, he didn’t explicitly say “The attack on the Benghazi Consulate was a terrorist act.” When he said “acts of terror,” he might have been referring to the 9/11 attacks of eleven years ago. And he said “terror,” not “terrorism,” so it doesn’t count.

Seriously. That’s what they’re going with. And then they get mad when normal people make fun of them.

Now Romney’s allies are trying to recover the fumble on his behalf by saying well, sure he uttered the word ‘terror’. But that’s just a word. Look at the context. He also mentioned the video. And videos don’t have anything to do with terror! In other words, but, but, but … the video!

More —

Through the lengthy and squalid effort of the Republican party and its press allies to exploit the attack last month in Libya, the centerpiece has been the alleged magical powers of the words ‘terror’ and ‘terrorist’. It’s reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani’s endless yakking in 2008 that the biggest problem with his Democratic opponents was that they didn’t say “9/11” enough, as though one grapples most effectively with the threats to the country by the endless repetition of buzzwords. … The Romney camp’s angle has been that Romney is Churchill incarnate because he’s saying terror, terror, terror and is too big a man to try to get a read on whether the video played any role.

Live by the buzzword, die by the buzzword. It’s been a nonsensical proposition from the start to imagine that foreign policy seriousness is defined by being the first one to hit the ‘terror’ buzzer like you’re a contestant on Jeopardy. But the Romney camp laid the trap. And tonight Mitt walked right into it.

Share this:

16 Comments

It’s amazing to me how hard the righties want to fight over something that is mostly a cheap argument and at most is a case of some State/CIA bungling and ass-covering, not some kind of dastardly conspiracy or exemplar of “weakness”.

I guess it does provide distraction from the disgusting way the Romney campaign’s first reaction to news of the deaths was to use it as a platform for an attack on the White House, when they tried to tie it to their bogus “apology” narrative. While we’re looking at transcripts, can we look at the transcript of Romney’s original statements, using the death of our Foreign Service officers as campaign props before the bodies were cold?

But seriously – my memory of the Benghazi aftermath is that the administration very quickly started describing it as a “terrorist attack,” within 48 hours or so (i.e., as soon as they could clarify and confirm information from sources in Libya). I remember raising an eyebrow at the abrupt change, and I know it came a lot sooner than 14 days after the event.

I think the thing to remember here is that “clarify and confirm” are necessary steps for any serious-minded, competent administration in times of crisis. Which is why people keep asking Mitt to explain the differences between himself and G.W. Bush. Jumping to bulls**t conclusions was the Bush Administration’s foreign policy specialty, and now Mitt is making it his own.

Lord, I can’t wait for this election to be over, so we won’t have to listen to Mitt’s blowharding anymore.

Re: labeling stuff terrorism, It’s ridiculous, in any event. We should not call something a terrorist attack just because it’s bad. That’s the point of terrorism – to have us jumping at shadows.

What Obama did was mature and wise – wait until the facts are in, and then say what we know, and then… then, make sure the perpetrators know that there is no worse enemy than the United States of America, while doing one’s best to be sure that people feel they have little to fear if they’ve done nothing wrong.

Why is it so essential to label a crime “terrorism” before the facts are in? Why assume terrorism, until you have actual information? It’s such a *stupid* non-issue, and the only reason it’s any issue at all is that Very Serious People agree that it would be bad to fail to label a terrorist act “terrorism” quickly enough. But the Very Serious People thought that attacking Iraq was a good idea, too.

I think the Republicans believe that if they say “terrorists,” or “Islamic terrorism,” in just the right way, or with the right inflection, or in the right sequence of magic words, or say it just enough times, that terrorism would disappear, and peace would pop-up!.
I’ll call this “Beetlejuice Diplomacy.”

The righties are a little slower to label killing of abortion clinic doctors, “acts of terror”, aren’t they? What a bunch of pathetic, traitorous clowns. They disrespect the dead just to undermine a president of the opposite party!

What Romney would do if president – maybe a month down the road – would be to declare that it was now clear that (following the unprecedented attack in Libya) Iran already had nuclear weapons which they’d hidden all over Iran and bombing followed by invasion and occupation would occur two weeks hence.

Not only did the attack on the embassy prove it, some guy named Curveball II had seen the stock piles.

And the fun debate is coming up – Mitt’s real area of expertise:
FOREIGN POLICY!’

Yeah, Mitt’s gonna be rubbing up on Bibi. Several times he’s mentioned the” putting daylight between us” barb concerning Israel.

I feel confident in my knowledge and understanding of history;but for the life of me I can’t grasp the undying and inseparable bond/commitment we have with Israel. It doesn’t make sense to me other than the religious right believing that some sort of divine affinity with Israel is necessary to secure our blessing of liberty. Is that the sole reason?

Does anybody know why we are so blindly bound with Israel? What makes Israel a sacred cow? I just don’t get!

Even Paulie tried to drive that wedge that Obama didn’t drop what he was doing and court Bibi when they were both in New York at the same time.. The ultimate diss.

Romney is a psychopathic ghoul. He’s got no problems with feeding off the dead.

He mentioned last night about being a missionary, but he didn’t mention the he killed the wife of the lead missionary in a car accident where he was the driver.He does claim that the missionary leader couldn’t continue in the mission field because he was so devastated that he returned to the United States, and that Mitt “rallied” his fellow missionaries. Another Romney success at the cost of somebody’s life.

James Lipton of the actors studio was on Hardball with Chris Matthews and he summed it up in one sentence: This election comes down to whether you want to elect a boss or a President. His comment should be a Obama Ad , flooding every market in the nation.

Tom B… Yeah, that describes the relationship, but it doesn’t explain it. I’m assuming you are snarking with a chicken or the egg/ circular statement. That wouldn’t explain why any politician who speaks ill of Israel or questions our relationship with Israel would become an instant political pariah Remember Bibi got a standing ovation before Congress.. not for what he said, but for who he is, not as a man of greatness, but as an Israeli politician. A sad state of affairs.

Until I get to vote for representation in the Knesset, I’m going to say that if there is anyone who should be in charge of making sure there is no daylight between our foreign policy and that of Israel, it should be the Israeli Prime Minister, not the President of the United States.

Let’s be clear on who’s the client state, shall we? Bibi had better line up behind the White House, not the other way ’round!

It’s a sign of how topsy-turvy, up-is-down things have gotten that this hasn’t been said before, every time that disloyal punk Romney talks about outsourcing our foreign policy.